|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A proper understanding of logical fallacies will improve the quality of debate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
This sounds rather more like Sandage being influenced by the lack of a Big Crunch, rather than the existence of a Big Bang. It is possible I could have stated this more clearly from the beginning. It is the nature of the big bang as a singular event which is most compelling. If the big bang was really just one in a series of big bounces, then it could have a physical cause. But when the big bounce is not viable, you are left with a singular event. It is hard to conceive of any physical law that comes with a label saying "Good for only one use."
I will acknowledge that there does seem to have been some influence upon Sandage's conversion here, so I suppose that you are actually not too far off. Thank you!
I still think that your use of this quote is an appeal to an inappropriate authority though. An appeal to an inappropriate authority means the quoted person is not a real expert in the subject. i don't think you mean to say Sandage was not an expert astronomer and cosmologist. Regarding Sandage's quote on Euclidean postulates, you write:
This is in direct contradiction to the argument for which you were attempting to use Sandage as backing. Whatever effect Sandage might have been influenced by the Big Bang or other cosmology, he clearly disagrees with you about the idea that cosmology actively supports a designer. Not true. There are two levels of "belief" when the term is used in its widest connotation. The first level of belief is just intellectual assent to certain facts or evidence. Sandage reached this first level in 1974 when he learned the big bang was a singular event. He changed his mind and agreed the evidence led to a supernatural beginning for the universe. Someone can make this first step without changing religions. Robert Jastrow was one. Jastrow remained an agnostic even though he admitted the universe had a beginning and this is in line with the creation account in the Bible. The second level of belief is sometimes said to require a "step of faith" or "leap of faith." Sandage made this step or leap in 1976. This only happens after a person feels they know enough about who the creator is that they can put their trust in him and to begin to live as the creator requires. Sandage could have chosen YHWH, the God of the Jews. He could have chosen Jesus Christ, the God of the Christians. He could have chosen Allah, the God of Islam. Or he could have put his trust in some fourth or unknown god. The big bang does not give us the identity of the creator. I have never claimed it did. I have only said the big bang is compatible with and supports the idea of a Designer or Creator. Sandage's discussion of trusting in Euclidean postulates is more in line with the step of faith of trusting in the God he identified as the most likely creator.
The part of your argument that actually proved controversial, the only bit that anyone really disagreed with you about, was that we could find support for a designer from cosmology, and there, Sandage provides you with far less support. I fail to see how an individual who said "Knowledge of the creation is not knowledge of the creator," or "astronomers may have found the first effect, but not necessarily thereby the first cause sought by Anselm and Aquinas" can be used to support your more extreme claim. I do not think my view and Sandage's are that different. I have not claimed the big bang proves God exists (which is what Anselm and Aquinas tried to prove). I have said the big bang is compatible with and supportive of the concept of a designer or creator. I believe Sandage agrees with this. Go back and read the quotes i provided. It is clear the big bang put him on his spiritual journey which culminated in his conversion experience. And Stephen Hawking agrees that the big bang is supportive as well. Did you read my summation of the last thread? Hawking admitted the big bang smacks of divine intervention and it was the reason he tried to develop a theory which did not need a beginning, but his theory never caught on.
You also appear to have forgotten this item, which PaulK introduced; The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:[1][2]1 The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject. 2 A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion. I agree with these with one proviso. As to #1, I think it is clear I have only quoted legitimate experts on the subject. As to #2, I have presented a smattering of opinion from atheists (Hawking), agnostics (Jastrow) and recently converted believers (Sandage). Here's the proviso. I think "consensus" is not the correct requirement in this context. Consensus can mean either complete agreement or majority agreement. When discussing a controversial subject, I think it is enough to show reasonable people from all positions agree. Universal agreement is too high a standard. It is unreasonable because there are unreasonable people in the world. I think the argument I presented meets the requirement.
But equally it underlines how Sandage's position is different to yours. He admits that belief requires a leap of faith, akin to pascal's Wager. Your position, that cosmology actively supports a designer goes further. Please see the above description of two levels of belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: No, he STARTED by arguing compatibility, but he recognises that support is different from compatibility, and explicitly stated that he intended to argue for support. Your argument that he fails to even understand that difference is quite frankly insulting to designtheorist and not born out by the thread. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
You are not going to support your claim that the scientists I was going to list are inferior to you?
Perhaps you realised that you were Poisoning The Well by making a Hasty Generalisation... designtheorist writes: So, this is where you switch it to an Argument From Authority (and Cherry Picking). It is not an argument from popularity. First, it is a supplementary argument (why don't people get that point?). Supplementary arguments are used to convince people to look at the other evidence. There is no purpose in posting a short list of scientists that agree with you unless you want to Appeal To Authority.And if your intention is to provide a long list of scientists that agree with you then that will also be an Appeal To Popularity. designtheorist writes: I sense an Argument From Authority - or maybe an ad hominem.
Have you ever studied the history of science? designtheorist writes: So now you claim that your 2 (or is it 3?) scientists are a "significant movement of opinion"? Really? Not every significant movement of opinion proves to be correct, but most are.And how do you know if this is a "most are" or a "not every" opinion? Oh yes - you use your a priori belief. This is also where you have switched back to an Argument From Popularity.
designtheorist writes: I sense another Argument From Authority...
The people whose views I have been quoting are at the very top of their fields. designtheorist writes: Perhaps if you could provide some kind of argument that doesn't rely on so many fallacies, then your arguments might be considered less ... fallacious. Do you, or anyone else here, show any eagerness to learn why they changed their views? No. You are only interested in scoring make believe points. On the plus side: this thread is about logical fallacies and you have Unfortunately, you do not show any eagerness to gain a proper understanding them. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Perhaps if you could provide some kind of argument that doesn't rely on so many fallacies, then your arguments might be considered less ... fallacious. It is for this reason that I leave this thread in dispair. It's not going anywhere and the temptation to be sarcastic is too great. That said, Designtheorist keeps his/her cool and does not rely on word salad as much as some people I could mention.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Larni writes: While DT continues to provide coherent responses, I will never lose hope!
It is for this reason that I leave this thread in dispair. Larni writes: I've never seen an intentional word salad from DT. That said, Designtheorist keeps his/her cool and does not rely on word salad as much as some people I could mention.If I did I expect it would be the kind we all occasionally fall foul to. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
I've never seen an intentional word salad from DT. You are quite correct, of course. Hope s/he stays with us.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong. Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3863 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
I was arguing for both compatibility and support but not for proof. I don't think it is possible to argue conclusively from non-god to God. I was providing an argument from non-god to a creator/designer about whom we know little but who may be the God of the Bible (but there is no way to know that from the big bang itself).
To be honest, I do not understand why the thread should even be controversial. Even Hawking admitted the big bang "smacked of divine intervention" which is why he turned his back on the big bang (a concept he helped to establish as the standard cosmology) to promote his contrived theory about an expanding universe which did not have a beginning - a theory which never caught on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4451 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
designtheorist writes: The theory of evolution is not the only model to explain the diversity of life we see. In fact, neo-Darwinism is crumbling due to genetics (but I am giving away a future thread). Cool! I can't wait. You might want to familiarize yourself with the term PRATT before you start that thread. oh, and welcome to EvC.Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.Valley What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Neither do I. It's pretty obvious that your position is weak and perhaps indefensible.
quote: Hawking never turned his back on the Big Bang, so it seems that your quote is less significant than you think that it is. Quite frankly Hawking's idea which "never caught on" looks awfully close to the view that you have been pushing - no time before the big Bang and therefore no prior state where the universe did not exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I think he means Hoyle, not Hawking.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
designtheorist writes: Even Hawking admitted the big bang "smacked of divine intervention"... I think you mean Hoyle.
I was arguing for both compatibility and support but not for proof. No one here would ask for proof, only support, assuming by that you mean scientific support in the form of evidence. If you're merely trying to show atheists that their views are not shared by some prominent scientists then I think they already know that. But it would be a fallacy to argue that because some prominent scientists believe the Big Bang hints at the supernatural that it imbues the idea with greater credibility. You have your list of scientists that lean toward your view, but atheists could offer a different list of scientists that lean their way, and where does that leave you? Scientifically you're no better off than you were before. Treating what certain scientists believe as if it were evidence for what might be true about the universe is a fallacy. That's why your quotes of famous scientists who lean your way will not convince anyone from the other side. You're not likely to find those who disagree with you quoting scientists who lean the other way, because they understand it is a fallacy. It is the evidence that persuades scientists to lean one way or the other that's important. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I think he means Hoyle, not Hawking. If so, then what was Hoyle's role in helping establish the Big Bang theory? In fact wasn't it Hoyle's intent to denigrate the BBT by giving it a ridiculous name? I suggest letting DT make his own excuses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
quote: I'm guessing he meant Hawking:
Hawking, Brief History of Time writes: Aristotle, and most of the other Greek philosophers, on the other hand, did not like the idea of a creation because it smacked too much of divine intervention. This isn't really 'admitting' it, but I suspect this is the quote designtheorist had in mind. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
To be honest, I do not understand why the thread should even be controversial. Even Hawking admitted the big bang "smacked of divine intervention" which is why he turned his back on the big bang (a concept he helped to establish as the standard cosmology) to promote his contrived theory about an expanding universe which did not have a beginning - a theory which never caught on. You're making stuff up again, aren't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
It is not an argument from popularity. First, it is a supplementary argument (why don't people get that point?). Supplementary arguments are used to convince people to look at the other evidence. That is how a quote from an expert should work. If your argument is simply that so-and-so has opinion X then quotes are just fine. However, your arguments seemed to stop there. You never got to the other evidence, or at other times used fallacies such as the Sharpshooter fallacy (i.e. the fine tuning argument). So-and-so's opinion should have very little to do with your argument, but it seems to make up the bulk of it. That is the problem. I think we would all agree that there are experts here and there that believe in a supernatural origin for the universe. That is not under question. What is under question is whether or not the evidence supports this position. Recently we have had a spate of ID/creationists who have based their entire arguments on quotes. When pressed to present the evidence we get more quotes. I even started a thread that dealt directly with the evidence from one of the ID/creationist's favorite authors, and still it boiled down to avoiding the evidence and focusing on quotes. Another poster has tried to start another thread based entirely on quotes, and that thread is still in the doghouse waiting for proposal. The moral of the story here is present the evidence. Quotes are just a distraction. Focus on the evidence. Focus on making coherent and well formed arguments.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024